The effect of the Great Rings upon Men

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galin

For clarity I'm arguing/agreeing that the Witch-king did fear this Boromir personally, although this is not the Boromir of the Fellowship. You might be aware of this but your addition of Faramir here made me wonder if we are talking about the same Boromir.

I wasn't, actually. Thanx for prompting. I now dimly recall from a very long time ago in my readings that there was more than one Boromir. It's been a very long time since I read of the Numenorean Realms in Exile, and I never really engaged with the Stewardship mythology.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"No other blade could have dealt that foe a wound so bitter..."

Which to me says not that no other blade could wound him, just that no other blade could wound him as badly. After all, the W-K's supposed invulnerability isn't ever stated; instead what we have is a prophecy by Glorfindel, "not by the hand of man shall he fall," which is not at all the same thing as PJ's dunderheaded "No man can kill me."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Giving of rings: let's not forget that the Appendices post-dated the writing of Book I by ten years and more; there is no indication that the story of Thror giving Thrain his Ring while still on his two feet and then toddling off to Moria existed before the writing of Durin's Folk, and almost certainly wasn't yet conceived when Tolkien wrote the passage in question (heck, Moria itself didn't exist yet). At the time, to the extent he thought of it it all, he likely assumed the Ring was handed over on Thror's deathbed, or simply found among the dead king's effects, as it had been from father to son for dwarven generations.

Similarly, the passing around of the Elf-Rings seems to have arisen at the Appendices stage, or at the earliest during the writing of the final chapters in one long burst, and wasn't anything he considered while writing Chapter 2 a decade earlier.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Which to me says not that no other blade could wound him, just that no other blade could wound him as badly. After all, the W-K's supposed invulnerability isn't ever stated; instead what we have is a prophecy by Glorfindel, "not by the hand of man shall he fall," which is not at all the same thing as PJ's dunderheaded "No man can kill me."

Yes. However, there's a premise missing.

The 'blade of Arnor' argument is a two-pronged position (pardon pun) not one of '...how bitterly...' "a" blade might hurt him. 1. Spell; 2. To target an invulnerability. Devised for it, in fact, it does seem.

The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade).

Prophesy referring to the "hand of man" and not "a man" of course is the exact tension mounted by Tolkien. I suspect he did it on purpose. We think 'of humans with human DNA' when we read "hand of man". Yet, Eowyn played the gender card, which is rather interesting, which refers to what you said.

This must imply, then that Glorfindel's prophesy was circumscribed, in, perhaps a discernment he missed. We found that Holbytlan and female downed him. That leaves us pondering what it is about Holbytlan and women that was different. There's a lot about Halfling 'fibre' and their general resistance to Evil, and about their hardiness of body. I'm not clear what it was that Tolkien was saying about men and women (lower case 'm' and 'w') that was at work that enabled Eowyn to do something no man in the many hundreds of years of wars with Arnor could.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Yes. However, there's a premise missing.

The 'blade of Arnor' argument is a two-pronged position (pardon pun) not one of '...how bitterly...' "a" blade might hurt him. 1. Spell; 2. To target an invulnerability. Devised for it, in fact, it does seem.

The Arnor blade had a counter spell that attacked something specific in the Witchking. It was about the knitting of will to undead flesh. I don't recall normal metal ever having such an imbued property in the mythology. Do you? There's part of the invulnerability addressed, by a specific reference to Lore. You may argue what a normal blade would do, and if any effect can be imputed of 'any' blade to 'knitting' (I don't think it's easy to knit a scarf with a blade).

The blade didn't knit anything- it un-knit it.

Anyway, is your argument here that, since any effect *less* than "breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will" would be negligible, Merry's blade *may as well* have been the only one that could wound the Witch-king?

This must imply, then that Glorfindel's prophesy was circumscribed, in, perhaps a discernment he missed. We found that Holbytlan and female downed him. That leaves us pondering what it is about Holbytlan and women that was different. There's a lot about Halfling 'fibre' and their general resistance to Evil, and about their hardiness of body. I'm not clear what it was that Tolkien was saying about men and women (lower case 'm' and 'w') that was at work that enabled Eowyn to do something no man in the many hundreds of years of wars with Arnor could.

I have always taken it that Glorfindel meant, simply, that no man *would* kill the Witch-king, not that no man *could* kill him. That is, it's not that women and hobbits as groups possessed any innate Witch-king lethality, it's just that the individuals who killed him *happened* to be a woman and a hobbit. (Similarly, Macduff is not generally assumed to have had special Macbeth-killing powers as a result of being a Caesarian birth.)

[Ivriniel]

Hi Nerwin, about knitting, yes I know. It's in about a hundred places upstream together with the Canon citation which I have not bothered to re-quote, as I assumed it had been read.....that's why I suggested that one shouldn't knit with swords. (scarves, as in with wool, etc. Cuts the wool)

Interesting 'would-could' distinction. I have echoes of the same recollection. But a poster, upstream donged that on the head.

There's a canon citation, that points out that Earn(ur/il) (I forget which forgive me, anyhooz, the last King of Gondor) did not quail when Witchy Poo charged. It was the horse that blew a fuse and ran off.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Interesting 'would-could' distinction. I have echoes of the same recollection. But a poster, upstream donged that on the head.

Who was that? I can't find the post.

There's a canon citation, that points out that Earn(ur/il) (I forget which forgive me, anyhooz, the last King of Gondor) did not quail when Witchy Poo charged. It was the horse that blew a fuse and ran off.

That's correct. It was Earnur, and that was in fact the occasion of Glorfindel uttering his prophecy about "not by the hand of man will he fall".

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Who was that? I can't find the post.

That's correct. It was Earnur, and that was in fact the occasion of Glorfindel uttering his prophecy about "not by the hand of man will he fall".

A beautiful citation from Belegorn

Originally Posted by Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion
he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight for him. Eärnur would have withstood him; but his horse could not endure the onset, and it swerved and bore him far away before he could master it.

This citation 'dongs' on the head any suggestion that it was, somehow, a 'male' incapacity to 'withstand' the Witchking--in a 'Head On Up Front'. This means there was 'a man', Earnur, who could, basically, stand there, in front of witchypoo and stab at the creepy thing in front of him. "Would" a man "yes" is the answer and "could" a man (withstand), a double yes is the implication of this canon.

Soooo that leaves us wondering, again Glorfindel's words that give one a headache, because "not by the hand of man" means not "Eowyn is not of man(kind)" but "a woman I am, not a man".

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I have always taken it that Glorfindel meant, simply, that no man *would* kill the Witch-king, not that no man *could* kill him. That is, it's not that women and hobbits as groups possessed any innate Witch-king lethality, it's just that the individuals who killed him *happened* to be a woman and a hobbit. (Similarly, Macduff is not generally assumed to have had special Macbeth-killing powers as a result of being a Caesarian birth.)

I agree. Good note on Macbeth too. It nicely illustrates the "technicalities" of these kinds of things. Macduff still had a mother of course, he was just not "born" in the usual way.